The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-05-18

the following paper to the Conventions:
"The undersigned delegates from st. Luke's
church, Charleston, feeling that they repre-
to state that they Hereby Withdraw from the
convention for the reasons set forth In the no
tice presented by the delegates from st. Paul's
Parish. Radclifeboro, and the undersigned,
comprising three-fourths of the lay delega.
Luke's Parish Is not In accord with the views
of the majority of the congregation.
NV. L. DAGGETT,
"F. PEYRE PORCHER,
&c. r. HOLMES"
The Bishop said that he was under the i'm
preston that st. Luke's delegates had already
Secretary Mccullough said that there was
still one left and that he could not be put out
either.
The paper read by Mr.. Eggleston was receiv-
ed as information.
AN OLIVE BRANCH WITH STING.
The next action taken by the Convention
was In the nature Of an overture 10 the seced-
ing members, and CAME up as the following
resolutions, which were offered by the Rev.
Resolved, That this Convention profoundly
regrets the action of the deputies from certain
parishes In withdrawing from the Convention
most earnestly requests their brethren to re-
consider their action and to resume their seats
In this Convention.
RESOLVED, That this resolution be presented
to our absent brethren by committee ap.
An amendment seeking to strike out the
words "resume their seats in this Convention"
was lost.
The Bishop then appointed the Rev. Mr. TIL
linghast, Col. E. NJ. Rucker and the Rev. John
Kershaw to convey the message to the other
house after Its adoption.
The Rev. Ellison Capers seconded the reso.
luton. He said that the resolution was what
he conceived to be the general feeling OF the
Convention He was sure that the departure
of the members had been looked upon with
deep and sincere regret. Perhaps their differ
ences OF opinion were as sincere as that OF
those who remained. He did not know how
the matter affected others. but he felt that 1t
was great calamity to the diocese; and II by
Of the brethren could be opened 1t would Sc.
cure great blessing to the diocese.
DR.. Porter said that he yielded to no mem.
Der In the body In his regret for what had
Convention could not ignore the fact that the
delegate from ST. Pauls (N1r. Hemminger) had
made the broad assertion that this body was
not organized, and that they (the seceders)
could not sit with this body by reason OF that
defect. He therefore did not think that the
Convention could consistently treat with the
opposition while their objections remained as
part OF the record. He considered that the
words OF the delegate from st. Paul's had put
q brand upon the Convention. He would do
anything he could, he said. to restore harmo-
hious relations, but he could not vote for the
resolution when the written record branded
the president and members Of the Convention
as having acted uncanonically, unconstitu.
tionally.
The Bishop said that IL would be very desir.
aoIe TO know IN the event OF ne return OF the
bate on the essential question Of disagree
ment.
Col. E. NJ. Rucker then took the floor and ar.
gued very strenuously against the right of the
10 Hp1p n n n no
rogatlyes Of the Bishop and the presbyters.
Col. Haskell replied, with some warmth,
that while he was In favor OF the resolution
he regretted to hear it intlmated that the con.
duct of the delegates. when they returned,
should be dictated by the Convention. He
would notdeny that the seeded delegates had
| another remedy than that which they had
adopted, for they could have remained In the
body and proceeded to the end with their
grievances filed as q protest. But to cut them
off from hearing when they returned would
be repugnant to the usages of all Republican
institutions; 1t would be tyranny,,the rule Of
the autocrat. What power, indeed, was there
| to prevent them from entering the next Con.
vention and reopening the whole question I?
Let them come back untrammelled, and II
strained by the Chair If they SOW discord in
the Convention again, let the responsibility
rest upon them-bnt upon them alone.
that Mr. Haskell is right. and that we should
take their action upon their return on trust
The Rev. Mr.. Capers said that the resolu.
| tons were in themselves quite expressive
been lost by the turn which the argument had
Mr.. Tillinghast: ~ am not prepared to say
that the members when tSey return will not
admit the due organization
| Col Haskell: "Thcre is no need of specula
ton as to what they will or will not do. Let
! them develop their own views when they re-
turn 10 their seats"
DELEGATES WITH INSTRUCTIONS sANcr1
FLED FARCE.
The question Of the right of a'congregation
to instruct It's delegates came In M here incident
Santee, rose to O point of order 10 state that
he alone was left OF the delegation of his par
ish. He said that he had been instructed by
his congregation years ago on the color ques
tion, but
Bishop Howe: 'sThe congregation has nc
right to instruct delegate on matters requir.
ing the exercise Of conscience"
A member: "Did your congregation instruct
you how. to vote on the subject Of the organi.
zation Of o convention? 2"
Mr.. Seabrook: NO"
Several members: "Ahw
Mr.. Seabrook: "Then I'm going to stay
| [Dignihed laughter.
THE ANSWER OF THE sEcEDERs.
In the meanwhilea message was announced
from the Convention. This reply was rs fol-
lows:
Resolred, That we accede to the request
submitted to us by the committee; provided,
that when we return and resume our seats In
the Convention the president OF the Conven.
shall entertain the appeal taken by Mr.. Nc
Grady yesterday, and shall forthwith put the
question 10 the Convention.
-BENNETT,
EDWARD MCCRADY, JR.,
w. ST. j. JERvEY.
THE BREACH wIDENED.
This reply apparently severed all connec-